launchpad and fai for ubuntu 8.10 (both server and client)

Adrian Gibanel Lopez agibanel at
Fri Jan 16 10:12:55 CET 2009

> "Adrian Gibanel Lopez" <agibanel at> writes:
>> Should I upload some source code to the bzr system? Where exactly?
>> Should
>> someone create a new branch/folder for me? (I am sorry but I am not
>> expert
>> on CVS but I will try to learn).
> Just to check, have you already submitted the problems you found with
> udev, live-initramfs, and initramfs-tools as bugs against the relevant
> packages?  It would be nice to get this fixed permanently so that FAI can
> just depend on new-enough versions of the other packages.

No. I've already said something about the reason for not doing so. I do
not know which it is the actual bug.

Is it busybox's mount command not being updated to the --bind and
--remount syntax?

Is it initramfs-tools and live-initramfs not using --bind --remount and -o
bind -o remount syntax in the right places (Before and after gathering a
dinamic mount which supports --bind and --remount syntax?

I mean I can understand that live-initramfs is buggy because it is for
creating live cds and maybe too many people uses it. But initramfs-tools?
Initramfs-tools is used by many people every day!

I do not want to bother other packages till someone repeat my debugging
process in order to make work a vanilla Ubuntu 8.10 fai package to server
Ubuntu 8.10 to the install clients.

If someone that understands better than I both initramfs-tools and
live-initramfs packages repeats my debug process he might find an elegant
fix, the actual problem (maybe only one line of mount)?

One of reasons why I used the logic-or sentences for mounting folders is
because I do not know if initramfs-tools and live-initramfs used in
another scenarios (Used by another packages, not fai) might need to run
mount either in --bind or -o bind syntax.

If you think that FAI-only developers as the ones who might be subscribed
to this mailing list are not enough/sufficient to track the problem, well,
we can discuss asking the other packages' developers.

However you will have to help me on defining the bug ;). As I already said
I have too many doubts.

And let's not forget my ldconfig.real call, in my opinnion it is a bug,...
but someone will have to track which mount call does the bad job, if it is
a dinamic mount (What's the dinamic mount's package ) or an static mount
(busybox). Or is it maybe a ld bug?

Firma Automática 1:
Adrian Gibanel Lopez
Estudiante de Ingenieria de Informatica de Sistemas en la Universitat de
Firma Automática 2:
Participante en el III Concurso Universitario de Software Libre.
Proyecto: Desdeslin.

More information about the linux-fai mailing list